<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 12/20/2008 04:37 AM, Peter Williams:
<blockquote
cite="mid:BFBC0F17A99938458360C863B716FE4639819EDD92@simmbox01.rapnt.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
If we could help pbwiki recognize and fix the protocol issues, I think they are pretty close to ready. Then, there is just the point of ensuring they support the same CAs as does the foundation (or any other customer of theirs): so 1) users are not "denied" at one foundation service, while "accepted" at another and 2) are denied at pbwiki for all cas where they were denied access (for reason of ca) at the voting site.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Agreed! Therefore I suggest that the foundation removes the CA
certificates of cacert from the foundation server in order to be in
sync with the wiki. I'm not aware of any policy adopted by OpenID, but
if you so badly insist on the principal above, than this is what should
be done then. So much fuss about nothing, you could simply ask PKwiki
instead (maybe they denied your request previously, who knows?).<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">Regards </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Signer: </td>
<td>Eddy Nigg, <a href="http://www.startcom.org">StartCom Ltd.</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Jabber: </td>
<td><a href="xmpp:startcom@startcom.org">startcom@startcom.org</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Blog: </td>
<td><a href="http://blog.startcom.org">Join the Revolution!</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Phone: </td>
<td>+1.213.341.0390</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<br>
</body>
</html>